About your Search

20120926
20121004
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17
under the obama administration the u.s. experienced a morbid of the infrastructure of the economy, the public sector become a manipulative force intervenes in the financial sectors with gowrn tee that attract talent and -- [inaudible] >> the worst this is the grain cast of the obama administration. and the epa now has a game control over [inaudible] has deemed a po lou assistant, danger to the environment. and co2 is the manhattan and keeps us alive. the circle of life and attempt to oppress co2 epitomizes the kind of antinature, antiimper prize spirit of the administration. it's the reason we need another supply side of the same kind we had under ronald reagan. >> would you change anything you wrote in the original "wealth and poverty." >> i would have changed quite a lot. i mean, there. all kind of detail that have changed. but i found that do try to change one thing would be to change everything. so, you know, you have in to a bunch of editorial work. instead of changing it, i essentially retained the old book and added 30,000 new words at the beginning and end. and revision of
, the unemployment rate at a .2%, the fact that our economy is just growing at 1.9% -- the real war on women is that they can't get jobs and that their spouses and family members can't get jobs and they are suffering from high gas prices, higher health insurance premiums, and they cannot find ways to advance economically. >> host: "how obama's gender policies undermine america" is a book by diana furchtgott-roth. she writes about the two worlds. in the world, women are more likely than men to succeed. women, on average, do better in school and work and life. they try him in everyday america. the other is a distortion constructed by radical premises and 10 feminists and washington policies. these politics are a career by telling people they are defeated. >> guest: yes, that's correct. by saying that women have to earn the same as men, it is imputed digital lifestyle choice. the feminists say that that is not sufficient. that by doing that, women are earning less than men in making a poorer lifestyle choice. just think, the last supreme court justices who were nominated, the last three women s
are unemployed in january two 2009. the fact women who want jobs can't get them. the fact the economy is just growing at 1.9%. the real war on women is that they can't get jobs. and that their spouses and family members can't get jobs. and they're suffering with high gas prices, high food prices, high health insurance premiums when athey cannot find the ways to advance economically. >> how obama's jernt policy undermine america is the name by dynedown. and she she writes american and the world women are more likely than men to succeed. women on average do better in school work, life, women try yum faint every day america. other is dis-- these pollations make a career out of telling women they are defeated. >> yes. that's because by saying that women have to earn the same as men it immunes the lifestyle choice which allows many women to choose the flexible job with lower earnings or the part time job and the feminist say that is not sufficient. that by doing that women are earnings less than make making a poor lifestyle choice. last three supreme court justices who were nominated. last throw w
of those special interest groups and the like. the bigger they get from them were hardly due to the economy and the less chance that they have to improve your lot in life, as abraham lincoln put it. >> host: is reality a part of capitalism to smack it is the basis of capitalism. contrary to the hollywood cartoon character of business people rubbing their hands in glee at the misery of others, even if you lust for money, you don't get it unless you provide products or services that somebody else wants. so without us even realizing it, it enhances humanity. you have to create change and cooperation and you have to get people to work with you. you have to persuade people to buy what you're offering. in that sense, free markets open up for her creativity. anyone can go anywhere and do something. but by golly, you have a chance to do it. it breaks barriers between communities and ethnic groups, and we take it for granted in this country. you start a business and he wanted the best people possible. that is a truism. that is a recent phenomenon. many societies are getting over that fact. you can g
the government, we will close down the american economy and, in turn, the global economy. if they do not solve the issue of this runaway spending, get some way to stop borrowing in excess, he tells the president of the united states if we default on this, on our obligations and our ious, we will trigger a depression worse than the 1930s. anybody here remember the 19 1930s depression? you probably don't. i don't. i was not born, but i've read about it. it was a calamity for the world. tim geithner said to the president what, if we default on this, if we do not solve this problem, we will have an economic catastrophe that will make the 2008 financial crisis a footnote in the history books. anyone remember the 2008 financial crisis? that's coming not from some columnist or journalist, that is coming from well-informed secretary of the treasury. you think about this, there is a value in running scared. if you think about after 9/11, the terrorist attacks, one thing the country did collectively is they set up tsa, the screening at airports. there are all kinds of work, very significant work done to
anybody think raising taxes builds the economy? >> no! >> no, his plan is to continue what he's done before, the status quo has not worked. we cannot afford four more years of president obama. we're not going to have four more years of obama. >>> wednesday, president obama and mitt romney meet in the first presidential debate. the news hours jim lehr moderates. watch and engage with c-span including the live debate preview at 7 p.m. eastern, debate at 9, and post debate, calls, reactions, e-mails, and tweets. follow our coverage on c-span, c-span radio, and online at c-span.org. now on booktv, peter takes about why our economy produces great wealth and great poverty at the same time. he offers suggestions on how to improve the conditions on tens of millions of americans living below the poverty line. this is about 50 minutes. >> well, thank you so much, debra. i am totally delighted to be here and thanks to busboys and poets for allowing me to be here, to talk with you, and, of course, thanks to all of you for coming. i see a lot of -- a lot of friends, some of my students are
increasing medical expenses that could bankrupt the national economy if something doesn't get done. i am glad obamacare passed. i am glad the supreme court upheld it but almost nobody believes it provides a genuine solution to the very genuine problem of the deficiencies with regard to costs. the contemporary united states government in its basic constitution's structure with any genuine affection. averaging polls in the last three weeks reveal only 17% of americans approve of congress. 76.5% disapprove. this actually represents a slight uptick of approval given in september of 2011 the new york times published an article in the personal approval of congress matches record low of 12% just as the gallup poll organization reported in the same month that, quote, american express historic negativity towards u.s. government, quote, knowing 81% of those polled were quote -- quote, dissatisfied with the way the country was being governed the. most shocking was august 2011 poll finding that 17% of those surveyed said the present national government actually possesses the consent of the governed. amer
the employment rate is 8.2% and the fact that our economy is just growing at 1.9%. the real war and women is that they can't get jobs and their spouses and family members can get jobs and they are suffering with high gas prices, high food prices, higher health insurance premiums and they cannot find a way to advance economically. >> how obama's gender policies undermine america is the name of the broadside by diana furchtgott-roth and she writes, americans live into in two world. one is a world in which they work, study played left cry love and hate and the other world women are more likely than men to succeed. women on average do better in school, better in work and better in life. women trying up in everyday america. the other america is a distortion constructed by radical feminists in washington politicians. these politicians make a -- out of telling women they are defeated. >> yes, that is because by saying women after earned the same as men at an pizza lifestyle choice which allows many women to choose a respectable job of lower earnings or perhaps a part-time job and the feminists s
getting schooled in the economy. the way to fix it, to reverse that, to offset is use the political system to get that result. in the political system, we can rearrange so what was lost in the economics is indicated more and more unequal is recouped by using politics. where the majority votes, where the majority rules is a perfectly logical way of thinking. and this has occurred to the rich as well. and to the corporations as well. so the more the system produces inequality, the more urgent it becomes for those benefiting from the inequality capitalism producers to control the politics because the alternative would be good. they're not going to do that. they're not going to allow the political system to function undoes what they have achieved in their mind in the economic system. they're not going to do that. see you can watch as america becomes more and more unequal, then it becomes necessary for politics to become more and more dependent on the money, dependent on the corporations to provide contributions to the economy, to the party more important than those things, the army of lobbyist
for the government, which also administrates prices, and called taxes, and so lower tax rates expand the economy and lead to more revenues for the government. and last zerosome struggle over government favors. >> we have been talking here on booktv with george author of several books including a new edition of "wealth and poverty" which came out originally in the early '0eus. this is booktv on c-span2. coming up next edward griffin. the an libertarian conference held in las vegas. he talks about the book the creature from jekyll island. the creation of the federal reserve system. it's over fifteen minutes. the book on your screen written in 1994. it is currently in the 32nd print. this sphift edition. and the author is g. edward griffin. these joining us on c-span2 in las vegas. who is the creature from jekyll island? >> what is the creature. >> yes. i had fun with the tight. i thought if anybody saw it this the bookstore, they might think it was a equal to jurassic park. it is they are the federal reserve m and the reason for the jekyll island connection was because one of the most springing th
apparatus, political dimension is making us forget the economy factors. there would be no democracy in the region if we don't have economic stability. to open up countries or open the market is something we know in africa. happened before. to deal with the arab world as we are very happy these people are for justice and we don't care which kind of political and economic policy for new positioning we get in the global economy which is very naive and we have to be cautious with this. we were dealing with this, something which is not as easy as this. it is if i have to talk about an intellectual revolution that is changing and we have to cope with this and hope the new generation are going to start from there. this is the beginning of the book and also saying hosni mubarak didn't know what was happening that -- many people were arrested because they were in the west and they were arrested. they knew something was happening. the american ambassador sent a note to the american government saying there are young people who want to get to the hosni mubarak regime before september of 2011 so
of globalization that has put ever more pressure on our society, on our economy, and on every individual who has and wants to keep or wants to get a job. china's important, but the message of this book is we don't need to look at china. we need to look at ourselves, and, indeed, we do need to look at our history and our traditions. one of the reasons that a book about the american future has a backward looking title, "that used to be us" is that we are confident, and we say so in the book, that if we get back to our best tradition, we can win the future in the way that we won the past, but we have to understand our traditions. we have to update them. we have to embrace them. >> host: what's your day job? >> guest: my day job is that i'm professor of american foreign policy at the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies in washington. we teach graduate students. i have wonderful students from all over the world. students come from all over the world to study here because this is america, and they know that there is something special about america, and we wrote this book to try to m
lab. the author of the sushi economy pulls the curtain that of the operatives that use social science to determine the outcome of elections. >> host: well, sasha this is a provocative and timely look as we are weeks away from the election. i want to know how did you come to want to write this book? >> guest: i covered campaigns beginning in philadelphia, so i was paying more attention to sort of tactics and techniques in the physical world of campaigns just because in the big city so much attention was being paid to the vote counted and precinct targeted so i talked to people that were making tv ads and i was always shocked as i think anybody that spent time on the campaigns is that most people couldn't explain to me why they did anything that they were doing. how do you know that and why do you do that and at some point they did it because the it always done it that we were they had some sort of a rule that wasn't based on any research. so some sort of skepticism about a lot of practices that were taking place and the way people were spending money and devoting time and resources and
campaign, and there's a sequence with al gore giving a stump speech about the economy is up and unemployment is up and wages a down and so forth. i was wondering how do the metrics compare between the 92 campaign, the last time the incumbent was defeated and this campaign, just the economic numbers based upon that? >> great question. of course, george hw bush lost in 1990 -- 1992 so one would assume if metrics are worse than then, president obama would lose. the only comparison i know it is that george hw bush had greater growth in the second quarter of ?iew and still lost than president obama had in this quarter so the economy is worse off. i also know that unemployment is higher than it was under george walker bush. i can't say for sure, but i think the next highest unemployment rate that a president's been re-elected at was 7.2% under reagan. i can't say for sure, but i think it was under 6.5% for george hw bush. i don't know what the inflation rate or interest rate was, but the economy was in better shape in 1992 by any objective measure than it has in 2012 so president
spending and over regulation of our economy. in the little time we have remaining because i want to open it for questions and answers, i'm going to get the seven of the policy concerns we have raised in "shadowbosses" about unionism. underscore and to hit on seven of them. number one union strive excessive spending on government employees. i don't know if you realize this but the private sector unions have to make sure that their demands are not so great that the private employer goes out of business, right? well, outrageous concessions to unions don't try the government out of business. and they don't make union members lose their jobs. the government will always be in business. unwieldy union contracts just make government immensely bigger, more expensive, create debt and bankrupt our city and state and ultimately our federal government. and they are more burdensome on taxpayers. two, unions are private organizations, and we give them special benefits and treatment from our government. it is important to realize that they are private organizations. they are not there for the public goo
stimulate our economy. >> well, i think we have a modern version of mutual assured destruction like we had with soviet union. if one side or the other does something abrupt, it brings down the whole system. that said, people worry about the world trade organization. we can't have tariffs and all that. maybe we can't, but our whole tax system is skewed towards favoring outsourcing and off shoring as opposed to building it here. so there are solutions we can undertake. >> thank you. >> i have a question about politics more than policy. i notice you work for politicians. i forgot who the nator was. i have a richer book. judd gregg. so you work for people who stood for office campaigned in the electoral system and the books about policy and the failure of policy seems to me that many people in the room have an example of that agree with your view in my view. about policy. the problem it seems to me isn't the policy, but a way out. and that seems to me the question is politics and leadership. and i don't see leaders out there for these people who agree with these policy problems to coalesce aro
afghanistan where the bulk of the troop surgeinciy unfolded, the economy is principally agricultural. most men are working the fieldsv were doing some sort of job that is related to agriculture. the u.s. government includedhemh pghtly that one key way to helo the afghan people would be toze, the farming toh try to provide them with somes o better seeds and fertilizer and in some cases, tractors and try to improve what they were goingl so thatle you would improve ther livelihood as a result, he woull sort of helped them out. so the problem was we tried to do too much of it at once. a h think of southern afghanistan and the farmers there is a of i, parched amman on a hot day.m ine instead of giving them a tall glass of ice water, we literallt turned the fire hose on him, ruining him on the process. beig we tried to pour so much moneypd in bed it wound up becomingy, counterproductive. this was a program that was trying to spend $300 million in and just two provinces in one year. not surprisingly, we wound upr t shoveling the goods of afghanthy and they drove it over to the border to pakistan and
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)